#33 Humans are
at the pinnacle of evolution; doesn't that give them the right to
use animals as they wish?

This is one of many arguments that attempt to draw ethical conclusions
from scientific observations. In this case, the science is shaky,
and the ethical conclusion is dubious. Let us first examine the
science.

The questioner's view is that evolution has created a linear ranking
of general fitness, a ladder if you will, with insects and other
"lower" species at the bottom, and humans (of course!)
at the top. This idea originated as part of a wider, now discredited
evolutionary system called Lamarckism. Charles Darwin's discovery
of natural selection overturned this system. Darwin's picture, instead,
is of a "radiating bush" of species, with each evolving
to adapt more closely to its environment, along its own radius.
Under this view, the idea of a pinnacle becomes unclear: yes, humans
have adapted well to their niche (though many would dispute this,
asserting the nonsustainable nature of our use of the planet's resources),
but so have bacteria adapted well to their niche. Can we really
say that humans are better adapted to their niche than bacteria,
and would it mean anything when the niches are so different?

Probably, what the questioner has in mind in using the word "pinnacle"
is that humans excel in some particular trait, and that a scale
can be created relative to this trait. For example, on a scale of
mental capability, humans stand well above bacteria. But a different
choice of traits can lead to very different results. Bacteria stand
"at the pinnacle" when one looks at reproductive fecundity.
Birds stand "at the pinnacle" when one looks at flight.

Now let us examine the ethics. Leaving aside the dubious idea
of a pinnacle of evolution, let us accept that humans are ranked
at the top on a scale of intelligence. Does this give us the right
to do as we please with animals, simply on account of their being
less brainy? If we say yes, we open a Pandora's box of problems
for ourselves. Does this mean that more intelligent humans can also
exploit less intelligent humans as they wish (shall we all be slaves
to the Einsteins of the world)? Considering a different trait, can
the physically superior abuse the weak? Only a morally callous person
would agree with this general principle. --AECW

#34 Humans are
at the top of the food chain; aren't they therefore justified in
killing and eating anything?

No; otherwise, potential cannibals in our society could claim
the same defense for their practice. That we can do something does
not mean that it is right to do so. We have a lot of power over
other creatures, but with great powers come even greater responsibilities,
as any parent will testify.

Humans are at the top of the food chain because they CHOOSE to
eat nonhuman animals. There is thus a suggestion of tautology in
the questioner's position. If we chose not to eat animals, we would
not be at the top of the food chain.

The idea that superiority in a trait confers rights over the inferior
is disposed of in question #33. --AECW

Centuries ago, the philosopher Rene Descartes developed the idea
that all nonhuman animals are automatons that cannot feel pain.
Followers of Descartes believed that if an animal cried out this
was just a reflex, the sort of reaction one might get from a mechanical
doll. Consequently, they saw no reason not to experiment on animals
without anesthetics. Horrified observers were admonished to pay
no attention to the screams of the animal subjects.

This idea is now refuted by modern science. Animals are no more
"mere machines" than are human beings. Everything science
has learned about other species points out the biological similarities
between humans and nonhumans. As Charles Darwin wrote, the differences
between humans and other animals are differences of degree, not
differences of kind. Since both humans and nonhumans evolved over
millions of years and share similar nervous systems and other organs,
there is no reason to think we do not share a similar mental and
emotional life with other animal species (especially mammals). --LK

#36 In Nature,
animals kill and eat each other; so why should it be wrong for humans?

Most animals who kill for food could not survive if they did not
do so. That is not the case for us. We are better off not eating
meat. Also, we do not look to other animals for standards in other
areas, so why should we in this case?

Predatory animals must kill to eat. Humans, in contrast, have
a choice; they need not eat meat to survive.

Humans differ from nonhuman animals in being capable of conceiving
of, and acting in accordance with, a system of morals; therefore,
we cannot seek moral guidance or precedent from nonhuman animals.
The AR philosophy asserts that it is just as wrong for a human to
kill and eat a sentient nonhuman as it is to kill and eat a sentient
human.

To demonstrate the absurdity of seeking moral precedents from
nonhuman animals, consider the following variants of the question:
"In Nature, animals steal food from each other; so why should
it be wrong for humans [to steal]?"

"In Nature, animals kill and eat humans; so why should it
be wrong for humans [to kill and eat humans]?" --DG

#37 Natural selection
and Darwinism are at work in the world; doesn't that mean it's unrealistic
to try to overcome such forces?

Assuming that Animal Rights concepts somehow clash with Darwinian
forces, the questioner must stand accused of selective moral fatalism:
our sense of morality is clearly not modeled on the laws of natural
selection. Why, then, feel helpless before some of its effects and
not before others?

Male-dominance, xenophobia, and war-mongering are present in many
human societies. Should we venture that some mysterious, universal
forces must be at work behind them, and that all attempts at quelling
such tendencies should be abandoned? Or, more directly, when people
become sick, do we abandon them because "survival of the fittest"
demands it? We do not abandon them; and we do not agonize about
trying to overcome natural selection.

There is no reason to believe that the practical implications
of the Animal Rights philosophy are maladaptive for humans. On the
contrary, and for reasons explained elsewhere in this FAQ, respecting
the rights of animals would yield beneficial side-effects for humans,
such as more-sustainable agricultural practices, and better environmental
and health-care policies. --AECW

The advent of Darwinism led to a substitution of the idea of individual
organisms for the old idea of immutable species. The moral individualism
implied by AR philosophy substitutes the idea that organisms should
be treated according to their individual capacities for the (old)
idea that it is the species of the animal that counts. Thus, moral
individualism actually fits well with evolutionary theory. --DG

No. It should be clear from many of the answers included in this
FAQ, and from perusal of many of the books referenced in question
#92, that the philosophy and goals of AR are complementary to the
goals of the mainstream environmental movement. Michael W. Fox sees
AR and environmentalism as two aspects of a dialectic that reconciles
concerns for the rights of individuals (human and nonhuman) with
concerns for the integrity of the biosphere.

Some argue that a morality based on individual rights is necessarily
opposed to one based on holistic environmental views, e.g., the
sanctity of the biosphere. However, an environmental ethic that
attributes some form of rights to all individuals, including inanimate
ones, can be developed. Such an ethic, by showing respect for the
individuals that make up the biosphere, would also show respect
for the biosphere as a whole, thus achieving the aims of holistic
environmentalism. It is clear that a rights view is not necessarily
in conflict with a holistic view.

In reference to the concept of deep ecology and the claim that
it bears negatively on AR, Fox believes such claims to be unfounded.
The following text is excerpted from "Inhumane Society",
by Michael W. Fox. --DG

Deep ecologists support the philosophy of preserving the natural
abundance and diversity of plants and animals in natural ecosystems...
The deep ecologists should oppose the industrialized, nonsubsistence
exploitation of wildlife because...it is fundamentally unsound ecologically,
because by favoring some species over others, population imbalances
and extinctions of undesired species would be inevitable.

In their book "Deep Ecology", authors Bill Devall and
George Sessions... take to task animal rights philosopher Tom Regan,
who with others of like mind "expressed concern that a holistic
ecological ethic...results in a kind of totalitarianism or ecological
fascism"...In an appendix, however, George Sessions does suggest
that philosophers need to work toward nontotalitarian solutions...and
that "in all likelihood, this will require some kind of holistic
ecological ethic in which the integrity of all individuals (human
and nonhuman) is respected".

Ironically, while the authors are so critical of the animal rights
movement, they quote Arne Naess (...arguably the founder of the
deep ecology movement)...For instance, Naess states: "The intuition
of biocentric equality is that all things in the biosphere have
an equal right to live and blossom and to reach their own forms
of unfolding and self-realization..." --Michael W. Fox (Vice
President of HSUS)